Freedom of speech -- 50 years later

By T. Sima Gunawan

Indonesia's founding fathers dreamed of building a country based upon "Belief in the One, Supreme God, just and civilized Humanity, the unity of Indonesia, and democracy," as the preamble to the 1945 Constitution clearly states. How far are we from what our founding fathers envisioned 50 years ago, especially with regard to democracy? The following story and two others examine the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): It is ironic, after fighting for independence from 350 years of colonial rule, to realize that freedom also has its limits.

The irony is worth pondering as Indonesia celebrates its 50th year as a free nation.

Both the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila highly respect human rights, even though neither specifically stipulates how to implement these rights. One basic human right is freedom of speech, a hot issue here lately. According to the Oxford Dictionary, to speak with freedom is to speak without constraint, fearing nothing.

How does it feel to speak without constraint, fearing nothing?

Article 28 of the Constitution says: "Freedom of association and assembly, of expressing thoughts and of issuing writing and the like, shall be prescribed by statute." However, problems implementing the Article -- all substantial to democracy -- linger.

On July 28, the Jombang police in East Java broke up a discussion featuring Abdurrahman Wahid, the leader of the Moslem organization Nahdlatul Ulama, Megawati Soekarnoputri, chairwoman of the Indonesian Democratic Party, and several Moslem intellectuals including Nurcholis Madjid. The authorities allowed the committee to continue the discussion after the theme was changed from "cultural dialogue" to mauidloh hasanah (good dialogue).

Wahid had been not allowed, however, to speak a month earlier at a gathering held in another East Java town called Lamongan. The government said that Wahid was not on the list of speakers on the permit application.

Earlier, Teater Buruh Indonesia, or the Indonesian Labor Theater, was forbidden from staging a play about Marsinah, the labor activist who was murdered in 1993. The group had been scheduled to perform at Taman Ismail Marzuki in Jakarta on May 13 and 14.

The Attorney General has also banned a number of books, including those written by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who is said to be a left-wing author.

Setback

"There has been a set back in the exercise of freedom of speech in the country," human right activist T. Mulya Lubis said.

Before the government banned Tempo, Editor and DeTik on June 21, 1994, it seemed that there was a greater opportunity for the public to express their ideas, he said. The ban, which shocked the nation, was followed by a series of incidents seen as curbs on freedom of speech, such as the banning of public and academic seminars.

Baharuddin Lopa, chairman of the National Commission of Human Rights, blasted the authorities for constraining freedom of speech.

"They should allow people to talk first," he insisted.

"If the people say something which offends the government, the authorities can try the defendants under the existing law," he added.

Article 154 of the Criminal Code, which was adopted from Dutch law, carries a maximum of seven years in prison for anyone found guilty of publicly expressing opposition, hatred or offense to the government. Article 207 stipulates the maximum penalty for someone guilty of insulting a government authority or body as one year and six months in jail.

According to article 134, intentionally insulting the President or Vice President is punishable by six years in prison.

Article 134, known as haatzai artikelen or the hatred-sowing article, was borrowed from Dutch colonial law. It was implemented by the Dutch because they believed that the monarch could do no wrong.

Critics insist the article is obsolete and demand it removed from current law.

They also criticize the government for wrongly interpreting article 501 of the law.

The police contend that the article authorizes them to disband any gathering, including a seminar, that doesn't have a permit. But some legal experts, including Mulya Lubis, say the article is really meant for gatherings such as wedding receptions and does not apply to seminars or discussions.

Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security Affairs Soesilo Soedarman announced on June 22 that the government was waiving the permit requirement for academic activities on University campuses.

He also promised to review the universal requirement for an official permit for any gathering of more than five people, including cultural exhibitions and performances. But so far there has been no further statement issued.

In the first half of the year, more than 1,150 permits were administered for various events, according to Soesilo. Five requests have been turned down and 26 events have been broken up because they did not comply with prerequisites.

"A permit is required to organize a seminar because the government is not sure that things will go well with this," said Budyatna, dean of the University of Indonesia's School of Social and Political Sciences.

He observed that the government applies the security approach to maintain the status quo because they don't want to risk anything.

"The socio-political situation in the country is relatively stable. But compared to the U.S. and some other well-established countries, ours is still a little bit shaky," he added.

Budyatna, as well as Lubis and Lopa, said that the government should employ a welfare approach instead of the security approach.

"The implementation of the security approach is against the principle of presumption of innocence," Lubis pointed out.

Now that Indonesia has seen significant economic progress, the government should open the door for more democracy, Lubis added.

Lopa said: "There is an improvement in public awareness about human rights, including the freedom of speech. The government should follow this."

"Democracy is a characteristic of modern life. A modern country tends not to curb the freedom of speech," said Lopa, who is also Secretary General of Correctional Affairs at the Justice Ministry.

Unfortunately, modernism has come from the West, where traditions and culture are very different from Indonesia, resulting in a long and tiring debate. Even though the West and East agree on the universal concept of human rights, they have different views about how to implement these rights.

Talking about freedom of speech, therefore means talking about culture.

"We have to understand the different cultures in the first place," Budyatna said.

"The West is guilt oriented, but Indonesia is a shame oriented country," Budyatna explained.

"In the U.S., government officials who are criticized will feel guilty, but in Indonesia they will feel ashamed," he said.

Americans live in a "low-context culture", which allows them to state messages explicitly. But Indonesians, with their "high- context culture", don't send their messages explicitly, the American-educated Budyatna continued.

This explains why, unlike the Western press, the Indonesian press is not able to be a control mechanism in the country. The main function of the Indonesian press is to be the government's partner, according to Budyatna, a communications expert.

It would be wrong if Indonesian's simply accepted Western culture as is, because not all things offered by the West are good. But Indonesia shouldn't simply shun everything either, Budyatna said.

"The government should be able to adapt to the situation. We will soon enter the era of globalization. We can't be rigid, otherwise we will be alienated by other countries," he said.

Budyatna observed that lower-income people don't have time to bother about the freedom of expression as they are still struggling to survive. The demand for the right of expression emanates from the middle and upper-class. He said that not all established people actually care about the issue either, preferring instead to enjoy their monetary success.

"The struggle for human rights is risky," Budyatna said.

But he pointed out that the demand for more freedom of speech will rise as more intellectuals and idealists who want more than material goods accept the risk.

Lubis says people will react in two ways if the government continues to limit freedom of speech. They will be either apathetic or they will become restless and skeptical. They will not believe what they read in newspapers, what they see on TV or what they hear on the radio.

Lopa predicts that the situation could lead to chaos.

"Things can be dangerous. If freedom of expression is continuously checked, people could explode," he warns.